The Non-March of the Penguins

Everybody in Pittsburgh is reporting this morning that a deal has been struck to build a new arena that should keep the Penguins in the city.

Whether it's a deal that's good for taxpayers, well, that'll be up to all those folks to figure out. They've made a habit in that fine city of paying the fare for pro sports teams by financing new stadia, and really, that's their business. Doing it through a combination of getting into bed with gambling interests is peculiar municipal policy but, again, their business.

But the only way this is a good deal for the hockey and the NHL is, after more than two decades of lurching from one crisis to another, this finally brings stability to a franchise that came into the league on the heels of the Maple Leafs winning their last Stanley Cup.

Yep, it's been that long.

There was one bankruptcy. Then another. Then this long, drawn out relocation soap opera that was essentially based around the problem of replacing the NHL's oldest rink.

While fans in Pittsburgh have successfully painted themselves as long-suffering, faithful types, the reality is that the Penguins have been overly blessed with some of the greatest superstars in the history of the game over the past 23 years.

First Mario Lemieux. Then Jaromir Jagr. Now Sidney Crosby.

During that time, the Leafs, to name one franchise, haven't had a single player the measure of any of those three, with Mats Sundin the closest and, for a brief period of time, Doug Gilmour.

But even with these incredibly talented players and two Stanley Cups in the early 1990s, it has never been a sure bet in Pittsburgh that hockey would flourish.

A big part of that was ownership, to be sure. But the fans are partly responsible, and they sure stepped up to the plate lately by selling out 16 of the last 18 Penguin games.

Now they just have to do that consistently over the long haul, whether the Penguins have a great team or have a lousy team.

The uncertainty in Pittsburgh, meanwhile, isn't all over with the pending announcement of the new arena deal.

After all, who is going to own this franchise?

In theory, Mario Lemieux and his partners could simply retain ownership, having now achieved was they said was critical to the survival of the team.

But Lemieux has said publicly he just wants out. Moreover, it's hard to imagine there will be a better time to finally get his money out of the Penguins after being forced to roll the monies owed to him through his playing contract into an equity position with the franchise.

If Lemieux doesn't stay, then new ownership becomes a variable, and having lived through the tumultous, curiously financed Howard Baldwin years, Penguin fans know how much of a variable that can be.

But the Pens will stay and cities like Houston, Kansas City and Las Vegas will have to wait for expansion, which is, sadly, on the horizon.

Pittsburgh, to be sure, is at least an American city where the game is played and loved. Many Canadian minor hockey teams, both girls and boys, have been journeying south to Pittsburgh in recent times to participate in hockey tournaments, a cross-pollination effect which can only raise the standards of hockey in Pittsburgh.

So that's a good thing, that all the pieces are now in place for hockey to survive in a city where the game is actually played.

But whether its ownership or whatever, let this be the last peep of franchise uncertainty we hear out of that particular town for a long, long time.

Four Weeks Left

Chris Simon and Ted Saskin may be on the suspended list, but for the rest of the NHL, it's onward and upward.

On the whole, it's a lot more interesting to be an observer of the NHL's Eastern Conference with four weeks left on the schedule than of the Western Conference.

Out west, why, all eight post-season spots are already spoken for, with the competition remaining solely about deciding which teams get home ice advantage in the first round.

That has some value, of course. But it's not necessarily worth watching.

Out east, six of the eight spots are essentially taken.

Which means a month still to play and 14 of 16 post-season berths already owned by teams.

Not exactly ideal.

That said, the final two spots in the east are still up for grabs, and it looks like its going to be a humdinger of a fight for those berths given that no fewer than seven teams are still in contention.

That's called a bottleneck. Five teams are going to be pretty sour come the evening of April 8th.

Might even cost a few people their jobs.

So here's how this "race" shapes up, with it seeming very likely it could all come down to the final weekend of the season April 7-8:

7. New York Islanders (78 points, 14 games remaining, 6 at home)

Are the hottest team of the group. . .five of the next six are on the road. . .goalie Rick DiPietro playing as well as anybody right now. . .loss of Simon a peripheral one given overall team toughness. . .final two games away at Flyers and and away at Devils.

8. New York Rangers (76 points, 13 games left, 6 at home)

Almost as hot as Islanders, and beat them twice last week. . .very, very tough in shootouts these days, and Jaromir Jagr is even participating. . .Brad Isbister and Sean Avery playing strong late season roles. . .finish home to the Habs, away at Penguins.

9. Carolina Hurricanes (76 points, 12 games left, 7 at home)

Champs can't get on a roll. . .power play punchless again yesterday vs. Rangers. . .0-5 in shootouts, have scored only one goal all season. . .Rod Brind'Amour third among all NHL forwards in ice time. . .finish with home games against Thrashes and Panthers.

10. Toronto Maple Leafs (75 points, 13 games left, 7 at home)

Huge win Saturday against Sens. . .Wellwood, Tucker both back. . .determining factor in finish may be if Tomas Kaberle returns before the end of the month. . .Most of top shooters are in long scoring slumps. . .finish with road game on Long Island, home start against Montreal.

11. Montreal Canadiens (74 points, 12 games left, 7 at home)

Goaltending is a complete guessing game. . .Alexei Kovalev finally came through with the winner Saturday vs. Blues. . .host Leafs this Saturday in major tilt. . .tough finish to season with road starts in Manhattan and Toronto.

12. Boston Bruins, (71 points, 13 games left, 6 at home)

Seemed to drop out by losing to Flyers Saturday, back in by beating Red Wings yesterday. . .Zdeno Chara minus-3 very Philly, plus-2 versus Detroit, minus-11 on the season. . .very tough finish to season. . .on the road to Devils, Canadiens, Sabres, at home to Senators.

13. Florida Panthers (71 points, 13 games left, 7 at home)

Improved since departure of Todd Bertuzzi and Gary Roberts. . .Ed Belfour delivering strong goaltending down the stretch. . .play three straight on the road to end the season in Washington, Tampa and Raleigh.

So who's going to make it?

The guess from here? The Islanders and, if Kaberle comes back, the Leafs.

Gettin' Ugly Out There

Colin Campbell's suddenly a busy, busy man.

With the hockey industry still buzzing about an apparently lenient three-game suspension handed out to New Jersey enforcer Cam Janssen last week for bushwhacking Tomas Kaberle of the Maple Leafs seven days ago, Campbell will be calling another goon on the carpet today.

You know, one of those irreplaceable dudes who police the league and keep the sticks down.

The players without whom there would be anarchy.

You have to believe that either today or tomorrow Campbell will be handing the longest suspension of the season to Chris Simon of the Islanders after his nasty piece of stickwork on New York Ranger forward Ryan Hollweg.

You gotta see this one to believe it.

The incident occurred in the third period with the game tied 1-1 on Long Island. Hollweg, one of your garden variety agitator types, hit Simon hard into the side boards, with the Islander tough guy apparently hitting his face on the glass and falling to the ice.

The visibly angry Simon then got up and, rather than challenging his opponent to a fight as per "The Code," took a vicious two-handed slash at the Ranger forward's head.

Simon's stick seemed to catch Hollweg flush on the chin, sending him sprawling to the ice face down.

Head shot using a stick. A daily double.

While somebody somewhere will undoubtedly twist this incident into a argument as to why the instigator penalty should be abolished, Simon justifiably received a match penalty and will definitely be suspended.

But for how long?

Simon has been suspended on at least three other occasions. In 1997 he was banned for three games for uttering a racial epithet to Mike Grier, and in the winter of 2004 he was suspended twice, once for cross-checking and once for kneeing.

So we're talking multiple offender, here, a legitimately tough player who has been making room for himself for years by wielding his stick in menacing ways.

The longest suspension handed down by Campbell this season was nine games to Nashville's Scott Nichol for sucker-punching Jaroslav Spacek of Buffalo.

Simon should be looking at 10 games, minimum, although, remarkably, Hollweg wasn't seriously hurt on the play.

Twenty games would be the correct suspension, but with the moment-to-moment NHL, you just never know.

Simon could even get the Chris Neil free pass and I wouldn't bat an eye. NHL suspensions are just so unpredictable.

The Rangers, by the way, scored the winning goal on Simon's match penalty, helping the Islanders lose a critical game as they fight for a playoff spot.

Chalk up another one for the policemen.

Mail bag

Every Thursday, Damien Cox answers your Maple Leafs questions. Click here to submit your question. This week: plenty of Ryan Smyth fallout, including his name on a potential Leafs shopping list.

Q: Any idea if the Leafs will try to sign Ryan Smyth after this season? I personally think they have no choice but to do everything reasonably possible to make this happen. If JF Jr is serious about a Cup they need another highly talented player to share the load with Sundin, and he seems the best avaliable out there. Smyth on a line with Tucker would be a great complement to the Sundin line. I also feel the Leafs should buy out the remaining year on Hal Gill's contract. I think it's time to cut the loss on Gill, who obviously is not suited to the "new NHL". One of their younger defenceman like Kronwall could easily fill his spot, and do a better job.

Steve McKerral, Ottawa

A: Whether it’s Smyth or somebody else, I do believe the Leafs will go out and go hard for a marquee forward this summer given that they will have $10 million or more to play with. The choice will be whether to use that money to chase a centre – Daniel Briere, Chris Drury – or a winger such as Smyth, Jason Blake, Keith Tkachuk or Bill Guerin. Many of these players were, of course, available at the trade deadline, and getting them for free (no draft picks or prospects) is a lot more attractive to a team like Toronto.

Re Gill, he has two years remaining on his deal, not one. And at about $2 million per, he’s reasonable value for the dollars, although I understand some don’t like his game. When you consider St. Louis is paying Jay McKee $4 million, Gill seems a relative bargain and I believe, like Kubina, he hasn’t been nearly as bad as some have suggested this season.

---

Q: The Ryan Smyth trade is certainly very shocking. I'm a huge Leafs fan and he's my favorite player out there. One thing I'm confused - why did the Smyth team reject the Oilers offer - 5.4 mill when they wanted (I think) 5.6. Why should a difference of 200,000 against millions factor in Smyth's decision?

Glenn Devlin, Phoenix, AZ

A: I’m not sure it was that simple. I think Smyth came down and the Oilers came up, but two factors came into play. First, Smyth was determined not to give the Oilers a “home town discount,” so he undoubtedly drew a line he wouldn’t cross. Second, I believe he never thought they’d trade him because of his attachment to the team and importance in the community. It’s always tricky to evaluate these negotiations after the fact unless there’s an agreed-upon set of facts. Otherwise, each side is just giving it’s own spin.

---

Q: Is there anything stopping the Oilers from re-signing Smyth in the off season? With the Oils and Smyth reportedly having been so close in terms of contract numbers, it looks like a no-brainer from this side of the pond.

Do you think that Smyth would still be interested in going back to Edmonton? Do you imagine that now that the Oilers have picked up a few goodies for dumping Smyth, they might be willing to up their offer come summer?

Dan Tweyman, Bordeaux, France

A: The Oilers will undoubtedly make a play for Smyth, and there’s no rule saying they can’t re-sign him in July. That said, there’s obviously poison in the water now, and Smyth’s tears would lead you to believe there’s certainly no quiet agreement in place that he’ll return to Edmonton in the summer. Moreover, once the market gets going, it’s quite possible the number for Smyth may go north of $6 million.

---

Q: Hey Damien, A simple question, so I'll be Brief: Attendance - Down.

TV Revenue – Way down.

Salary cap - up, up, up.

How can this be?

Scott Bennett, Bishopville, SC

A: Well, let’s go through it. The NHL maintains its overall attendance is up. The league’s figures are always suspect in my mind, and what seems clear is that attendance in some cities – New Jersey, St. Louis, Florida – is really struggling. But it’s overall revenue that affects the cap, not that of individual teams.

On TV revenue, the numbers may be down, but the league’s revenue this season remains the same as it was last year. So I guess the answer is that other league revenues are improving – merchandising and sponsorships perhaps – and there’s that balancing act between the cap and the escrow number that can be used to make the cap number go up or down.

But really, I’m just as confused as you are to see that over the course of three seasons it appears the cap will jump from $39 million to $48 million. Business can’t be that good.

---

Q: Damien,

What is your opinion on allowing clubs in the NHL to sign one marquee player and not have that salary count against the cap. My proposal would be that each team if desired could have one player on their roster that would not count against the cap. This player as per the CBA could not be paid more than 20% of the teams salary cap. This would allow teams that can afford a little extra to go after a player to put them over the top. Just an Idea.

Sean O'Callaghan, Etobicoke

A: It’s an interesting idea that’s been tried out in other leagues. Big market NHL clubs like Toronto, Philly, Detroit and New York would love it, of course, but the majority of clubs wouldn’t mostly because it would skew the playing field. In general, while clubs may complain, all owners love the cap because cost certainty inflates the value of their franchises.

---

Q: Hi Damien,

I must say, your ESPN contributions have been really great lately. My question is two-fold: 1) Once the Leafs miss the playoffs this year and JFJ is fired, do you believe MLSE would go after the best possible candidate (i.e.: Lou Lamoriello or Brian Burke)regardless of their situation? Furthermore, 2) do you even believe established 'autonomous' GMs such as a Burke or a Lamirello would even consider working under the parameters MLSE generally imprisons their GMs/hockey execs to? Thanks so much.

Marc Losier, Montreal

A: Well, even if the Leafs miss the playoffs, I don’t believe Ferguson will be fired. I just don’t think he’ll get another extension.

But I’ll play along. If JFJ was canned, there’s no reason to believe the Leafs would go after the biggest fish in the pond. People will point to Bryan Colangelo, but he kind of fell into MLSE’s lap. More to the point, it was made clear to a variety of candidates last time around that nobody gets to run alone in this corporation, so the kind of autonomy you’re talking about likely wouldn’t be available to any new hockey man.

---

Q: So here it is, when are the Leafs going to blow this team up, you know and I know that this team does not have it to win the Stanley Cup, they were close in the early 2000's but right now their just a .500 hockey team, average at best. What can they do? They missed out on a chance to move Sundin and get some prospects and could have signed him back or signed another big name with the money from his contract, which at 9 million per season before the cap was ridiclous itself.

Second question, can this team trade McCabe or Kubina cuz 10 million or so that they have locked up in these 2 guys is a problem now and going to be a problem next few years with the cap, I know they have no trade clauses but is there a market for them, cuz again if the leafs rebuild, I am sure they would want to move to other teams as their getting up in years.

Ankur Arora, Mississauga

A: Just for clarification, Sundin’s cap number is $6.3 million, not $9 million. If they had traded him, he likely wouldn’t have returned, and their plan is to scrap the option year of his current contract and sign him to a new arrangement that will reduce that cap number for the next two or three seasons. As far as trading him, I don’t really see how that would benefit the club.

Re McCabe and Kubina, I think the recent trade deadline proved players will waive their no-trade clauses, but they want a say in where they’re going. I also don’t believe this team is necessarily locked into years of non-playoff futility. It’s whether they can win a championship on this current path that’s a more interesting question.

---

Q: If John Ferguson Jr. were to offer you a choice of trading away Sundin or Tucker, which would you choose, and why?

Mike Robinson, Scarborough

A: Tucker, because Sundin is by far the better player. Tucker’s only advantages are that he’s younger and cheaper, but Sundin’s a world class forward, the only one the team owns.

---

Q: This is perhaps old news but I think it is about time the CHL greatly improves player "salaries". I have absolutely NO vested interest. However, the current system is tantamount to exploitation. CHL owners are making extraordinary sums of $ while the worth of some franchises is escalating exponentially. All the while, players as young as 16 are paid well below the minimum wage. I understand all about education expenses but this is still a drop in the bucket for some franchises (London Knights). I believe it is time for an investigation/expose.

Ian Fairley, Orangeville

A: I have long thought this is a very curious and probably unfair way of doing business. The weekly wage for players hasn’t changed much in 40 years. What has changed is there are education packages available, but they’re not there for every player and accessing the money often has conditions attached to it. It’s an unusual system that has for a long time allowed some owners to get very rich.

---

Click here to send Damien a question and he'll answer a selection in his mail bag every Thursday in this space.

Union, Forbes and Headshots

The most nervous people in the room after Ted Saskin?

Why the 30 NHL owners, of course.

Saskin may be getting happy feet after months of being hounded by Chris Chelios - remind me to never get that guy mad at me - Dwayne Roloson and Trent Klatt, which some very smart agents helping out in the background.

But while you might think NHL owners are enjoying the spectacle, they're not.

They want Saskin to stay in the job. They believe, you see, that after years of Bob Goodenow, they finally have a union boss they can actually work with.

It was Saskin, don't forget, who cut the deal that ended the lockout with NHL vice-president Bill Daly. Since taking over from Goodenow, Saskin has been trying to work with the league on a variety of issues, although the union remains as useless as ever when it comes to health and safety issues.

I mean, shouldn't they be the ones raising a fuss over head shots?

The point is NHL owners do not want to see Saskin replaced, mostly because they understand his replacement would likely be a hard-ass, antagonistic opponent with which to deal.

So as the pressure mounts on the embattled NHLPA chief, its the owners who may be the most nervous of all.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jolly good of Forbes to rank the top general managers in North American sport.

Too bad the list is so riddled with errors.

Forget they put Don Waddell of the Atlanta Thrashers at No. 6 on their list, conveniently overlooking the fact the Thrashers have never made the playoffs. Forget that Glen Sather is 12th despite having failed to have any real success in Edmonton or New York in more than a decade.

How about Pierre Lacroix of Colorado at No. 14? Good choice, except he's not the Avalanche GM. Francois Giguere is.

Ditto for Dave Taylor (18), Bob Clarke (27), Mike Keenan (56), Mike O'Connell (73) and Mike Milbury (76).

None are GMs any longer. But they're all treated as such on the Forbes list.

Kind of hard to take it seriously, don't you think? Makes you wonder about everything else that publication does, including its annual valuations of NHL teams.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Craig Hartsburg, through his coaching of the Canada's world junior champs, has become one of the hotter coaching prospects at the moment.

Given that he was also a distinguished NHL defenceman for many years, he might have an opinion or two worth listening to.

And he says the Ontario Hockey League's head checking policy would easily fit the NHL.

"I don't see why not," he said today. "It sure hasn't taken away hitting in our league. I think it has a place in every league."

In the "O," any hit that makes contact with an opponent's head nets a two-minute minor, and anything more egregious than that is five and a game.

Hartsburg said he was surprised by the hit on Leaf defenceman Tomas Kaberle by Cam Janssen of the New Jersey Devils that left Kaberle with a concussion.

"For the most part, players in the NHL have better respect for each other," he said. "But you see a hit like Janssen's and you realize there are still players in the game who are out to hurt people."

Hartsburg, meanwhile, is expected to decide in the next week or so whether he'll coach Canada's entry in the 2008 world junior championships in the Czech Republic.

Canes Fizzling

When the Leaf Nation was up in arms last week after a marquee player wasn't acquired at the trade deadline and the team had lost back-to-back games to Montreal and Buffalo, some scoffed at my suggestion that there was no reason to panic.

It wasn't that I had spectacular confidence in the Leafs to nail down a playoff berth.

It was just that looking around at the teams they were competing against, it was clear there were no powerhouses among them, no squads similar to the '79 Habs or '02 Detroit Red Wings.

Well, here we are a few days later, and the Leafs have only won a single game yet are still in a promising position.

Why? Well, mostly because the Carolina Hurricanes are in serious danger of becoming only the third Stanley Cup champion to miss the post-season entirely after winning it all the year before.

Moreover, with Edmonton already out of it, it would be the first time in league history that both Cup finalists failed to qualify for the playoffs the next season if the Canes can't get their act together, and soon.

A 3-1 loss to Atlanta on Sunday left the Canes two points ahead of the Leafs, but with the Leafs holding two games in hand.

Montreal, struggling mightily these days, is right there, and so too rather suddenly are the Boston Bruins.

The Thrashers and Islanders appear to be on the verge of separating themselves from the pack a little bit, which may mean the final weeks of the season may come down to whether the Leafs, Habs, Bruins or even New York Rangers can catch the Canes.

And really, why not the Leafs? They're not great, but they're as good as those other clubs.

Carolina has stumbled largely because of goaltending - playoff hero Cam Ward has sat and watched John Grahame play four of the last five games - injuries to players like Cory Stillman and Frantisek Kaberle and surprisingly moderate production from third-year man Eric Staal. Staal does have 26 goals, but he's not been the force he was a year ago.

Then again, a year ago the Canes had Doug Weight and Mark Recchi around to help the kids, Matt Cullen up front for some speed and Aaron Ward to anchor the defence.

It's a very different team in many ways. The power play has been awful, the Canes are in the bottom half of the league both for goals-against and goals scored and Rod Brind'Amour has taken more serious hits this season possibly than in any previous year of his career.

The Canes don't play until Friday, which means the Leafs will make up their games-in-hand against Washington and Ottawa by then.

Which means they could be two points ahead of Carolina. At the worst, they must be tied, you'd have to think, or Paul Maurice's squad is going to be running out of time.

It also makes a Leafs-Canes clash three weeks tomorrow at the ACC look like a potentially tasty piece of business.

Friday Incompletions

My goodness, this Ryan Smyth story sure has some legs.

I have no problem with Kevin Lowe's decision. There just needed to be a slightly longer window between closing the door on the Smyth negotiations and the trade deadline so the entire matter seemed less rushed.

But if Smyth was looking at $5 million per season or more, you have to think the Leafs did a decent job getting Darcy Tucker under contract for $3 million a season.

If Smyth is the better player, Tucker is at least three-quarters as good, which makes the Leaf contract look pretty smart.

And while JFJ deserves all the criticism he's been getting over Bryan McCabe's inflated salary, he also did get Tomas Kaberle on board for $4.25 million per season, a bargain by NHL standards.

So if you believe McCabe got too much, you have to be willing to give the Leaf GM some marks for getting Kaberle and Tucker at good prices.

Other incomplete thoughts:

* After listening to McCabe get booed the other night at the ACC, you understand another level of smarts behind the Tucker deal. He'll never get criticized as overpaid, never get booed for not being worth the dough.

Moreover, people know Tucker could have got more elsewhere but wanted to stay in Toronto, and fans remember stuff like that.

* It's understandable that Jeff Garcia is a little cheesed off at the Eagles for letting him walk. But maybe Andy Reid just knows a one-time fluke when he sees one.

* It was fascinating to watch the Pittsburgh-Rangers game Wednesday night, the Pens first outing with Gary Roberts and Georges Laraque.

Roberts lasted about a period beside Sidney Crosby and Mark Recchi before being replaced by Evgeni Malkin and shunted to a line with Maxime Talbot and Colby Armstrong. That's a better fit.

Laraque, despite all the hype, looked terribly slow. Interestingly, while Crosby took an elbow in the head by Michal Roszival and Malkin was hit after the whistle by Colton Orr, Laraque was nowhere to be heard or seen. All this guy does is slow that team down.

* The 2007 NHL entry draft took a real slagging at the trade deadline when most of the teams seemed more interested in prying '08 draft choices out of the hands of opposition GMs than '07 picks.

* Damon Allen had to return to the Argos. He's still the best quarterback they have, and something tells me he'll be burning to bounce back in the fall. He's a solid bet for the Argos, particularly if his finger has been fixed properly this time.

* Curtis Joseph can't be the No. 1 goalie for the Leafs. But he'd be an ideal No. 2 man, and just might be the perfect player/coach/confidante understudy to Andrew Raycroft, particularly when it comes to playing in Toronto.

* You don't hear this much, but the reason the Oilers felt they didn't have enough to play Smyth was at least partially because they paid too much for Petr Sykora, Ales Hemsky and certainly oft-injured Fernando Pisani.

* Is it just me or are the Raptors a better team when Jose Calderon is in the game than T.J. Ford? That said, having two point guards who distribute the ball makes up for those years when the Raptors didn't have one.

* The tricky part for Paul Maurice about starting Andrew Raycroft in New Jersey on Friday and J.S. Aubin at home to Buffalo on Saturday is that if Aubin wins, wouldn't you have to go with the hot hand on Tuesday against Washington?

And then don't you have full-blown goalie controversy?

Mail Bag

Every Thursday, Damien Cox answers your questions on the Maple Leafs and the NHL. This week: the cap, to no-trade or not to no-trade, and MLSE's goal.

---

Q: Hi, Damien, I love reading your opinions on hockey and wanted to know what you think about the perceived lack of interest in winning on the part of MLSE.

Many of my fellow Leaf fans think that the executives of the team just want to squeak into the playoffs every year and fill the building every night. That irks me because the team has consistently been in the top 5 in player spending for years, and has boosted scouting in this salary cap era. I'm going to put forward the bold assertion that not only does MLSE want to win, but no one spends more than they do to try and accomplish that goal.

Is that reasonable, or am I just a lemming-like Leaf junkie?

Matt Dumas, Kingston, Ont.

A: No, you’re a fan that wants his team to win, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I think the concept of an organization “wanting to win” is overused. It’s really more about the combination of being willing to make sacrifices necessary to win and putting personnel in place that understand what is required to win.

MLSE, let’s face it, is a wildly successful company. If it was a publically traded company, it would be a popular stock, and the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund sure likes to have its money in the company. That said, it has never struck me that the organization has been willing to sacrifice – i.e., forgo profit – to pursue a Stanley Cup. Moroever, it’s record of finding the best hockey personnel and letting them do the job is spotty, at best.

So does Larry Tanenbaum want to win? Sure. I’m certain he’d love it.

But is he and the board willing to sacrifice MLSE profits to win? And do they have the faintest idea how to achieve ultimate victory in the NHL?

There’s precious little evidence of either.

---

Q: Hi there, hypothetical question that maybe you have answered before, but I'll ask anyway: What would happen if a team actually went over the cap?

Are they penalized financially, or would the player(s) signed/acquired who made them exceed the cap not be eligible to play? For example, what if JFJ decided the Leafs were going after Joe Sakic, cap be damned (I wish!) - and they traded away a 2 first-rounders and the remaining rights to Bob Halkidis for him, despite his salary then putting the Leafs way over the cap. Could Sakic play and the team just pays the league a fine, or would he not be allowed to play? What rules are there to stop the wealthier teams from doing things like that?

A.D., Belleville, Ont.

A: Simple answer. During the season you can’t even make a deal that puts you over the cap, or even call up a player from the minors that puts you over the cap. You can’t play a game with a roster that exceeds the maximum allowed payroll. No fines or penalties – you just can’t do it.

So re your hypothetical Sakic deal? Without clearing the requisite salary cap room first, the league wouldn’t approve the trade.

---

Q: Hey Damien, what are your thoughts on the Senators as we head towards the playoffs? In the past couple seasons when they were "supposed" to win it always seemed like there was an impending doom waiting and for good reason. Perhaps it’s the struggles they went through early in the year and digging out of that, plus they seem to have a goaltender with a bit a "swagger" where in the past this has not been the case. Seems like they are lurking in the weeds this year and may surprise, not unlike the Indy Colts did in the NFL. Thoughts?

Don Richardson, Mississauga

A: I agree. I like the Senators more this year than in other seasons when they sat higher in the standings. Their grit is underrated, and flying below the radar has been a very good thing for Bryan Murray’s team. Moreover, having a little less talent – no Chara, no Havlat – has made the Sens understand they can’t get by on talent alone, which seems to have made them a more focused team. Ray Emery needs to worry about playing goal more than fighting and the first round is really all about matchups, but I like the Sens as much as anybody in the Eastern Conference right now.

---

Q: Hi Damien. Hockey players are extremely well compensated for their services. Given that a team invests millions of dollars in a single star, why would a team also handicap itself and agree to a "no-trade" contract? What's wrong with just paying the star the millions of dollars?

David Goldberg, Toronto

A: Great question. Moreover, given that players with no-trade clauses in their contracts routinely waive those rights these days, it seems like a pointless exercise. That said, having a no-trade clause gives a player some degree of control. Even if the team he signed the deal with doesn’t want him anymore, it at least allows him to control his destination if he is to be moved.

Lowering the age of unrestricted free agency has given more players more leverage, and therefore more of them are pushing for everything they can get in a deal. The old days of secret agreements and unusual bonuses are over, so no-trade clauses are in hot demand and teams interesting in keeping players are finding themselves forced to meet that demand.

---

Q: Damien, I heard that the Leafs are playing Wozniewski tonight against the Flyers. I don't get it. Brendan Bell has been with the team all year and I think has played fairly well. Why would the Leafs/Maurice play with Bell's confidence like that? Kubina is out, Bell is the 7th defenceman, case closed. Let Wozniewski get a spot back in camp next year. Too close to playoffs to screw around with line-up. It's not Paul Coffey they are putting back in the line-up with Wozniewski.

Rocky Crupi, Ottawa

A: Obviously, Rocky sent this question before Bell was dealt to Phoenix at the trade deadline. But I think the issue is still interesting in that no matter what Bell did or how he performed, he couldn’t seem to get the confidence of the coaching staff. Conversely, Leaf management loves Wozniewski, and so does Paul Maurice. I’m not sure why that is, based on his few NHL appearances, but they believe he’s a legitimate NHL regular.

---

Q: Do you think Sundin would resign with the leafs at a much loser rate to allow the team to sign more talented players?

Tara Rehsi, Hamilton, Ont.

A: Now there’s a question and my answer would really be just a guess.

It really comes down to whether Sundin wants to stay in Toronto above all other considerations. Darcy Tucker clearly could have got more than $3 million on the free agent market but didn’t want to uproot his family. In New Jersey, Martin Brodeur is paid much less than other NHL netminders, but he’s in the first year of a six-year deal that guarantees he’ll still be getting paid by the Devils when he’s 39 and he knows he doesn’t have to worry about being forced to move away from his four children, who live with their mother.

Sundin’s a bit of a wild card in this respect because he doesn’t have a wife and children and spends most of the off-season in Europe or at least away from Toronto. So my guess – and it’s a guess - would be that he wouldn’t take a substantial discount to help the team recruit new talent. Maybe a small one, but not enough to make a difference.

---

Q: In response to your blog on "Fighting Logic" and the protection of Sidney Crosby, you propose that strict enforcement of the rules is enough. However, last couple weeks, Sid the Kid was speared, high-sticked and butt-ended, while not a single penalty was called. Furthermore, no one on his team went to his aid in any of these situations. Either this is an internal problem on the Penguins, or fear of getting the instigator penalty played a part.

Right now, it seems like the rules are not being enforced and if they were, would it really be enough? Do you not agree with the assertion that Gretzky had more room to move about with Semenko and McSorley riding shotgun? And by more room, I mean that players were less apt to look for the legal, but bone-crunching check on Gretzky, because if you did, you knew Dave or Marty would come looking for you.

The worst thing that could happen to the NHL right now would be if Ovechkin or Crosby were injured; injured because the players cannot effectively police themselves and/or the league isn't calling the game tight enough.

So then, what is the answer?

Jeff Danchuk. Toronto

A: You know, I watched an old playoff game featuring Gretzky and the Oilers the other day and I was surprised how little hitting there was, and how much room Gretzky created for himself by his awesome skill level. Did Semenko help keep the barbarians away? Sure, and Wayne certainly says he did. But this is such a negative way to look at sport in general and hockey in particular, that it can only be played properly with goons hovering above the scene.

Maybe I’m an idealist, but I believe hockey is better than that. Just as a running back can go through the line, take a tough hit and then jog back to the huddle, hockey at its best features players who understand contact is part of the game, whether they’re stars or grinders. Where the NHL has let itself down over and over has been its inconsistent application of the rules, and when that happens, teams want to police the game themselves.

It’s a failing of the sport, really, and I’m not sure it’s getting better soon. Obviously, the Penguins bought into the thinking enough that they went out and picked up Georges Laraque at the trade deadline.

---

Q: Damien,

In your recent article “Salary cap or is it cheatin' cap?” (Feb 21, 2007), you said:

“Under the new CBA, teams are not allowed to trade cap space or trade a player away while still paying part of his salary, which has teams exploring new ways to get around their cap issues.”

So this would preclude the Leafs from trading away Pavel Kubina to some team, but keeping 2 million of his salary on the Leafs’ books counting against the Leafs’ cap while the other team would only have 3 million on their cap.

However, what if you traded Kubina to another team with enough cap space, where that team would take on his full salary and cap allotment, but the Leafs included money in the trade, i.e. 6 million up front (averaging 1.5M/yr). The argument could be made that the Leafs are paying his salary, however, the players cap space wouldn’t be split between the teams.

Is that still ‘cheating’?

Matt Ferraro, Guelph, Ont.

A: You can’t put money in trades any more. No longer allowed.

---

Ask Damien

Every Thursday, Damien Cox answers your questions in The Spin, only at thestar.com.

Click here to submit a question.